3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 583
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
* contractual relationship; The method of selecting and engaging
G.R. No. 138051. June 10, 2004.
JOSE Y. SONZA, petitioner,vs. ABS-CBN
BROADCASTING CORPORATION, respondent.
Labor Law; Labor Code; Employer-Employee Relationship;
Existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of
fact; Appellate courts accord the factual findings of the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC not only respect but also finality when
supported by substantial evidence; Court does not substitute its
own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the
weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.—The existence
of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact.
Appellate courts accord the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC not
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
584
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
only respect but also finality when supported by substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. A party cannot prove the absence of substantial
evidence by simply pointing out that there is contrary evidence on
record, direct or circumstantial. The Court does not substitute its
own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the
weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.
Same; Same; Same; Essential Elements of an Employer-
Employee Relationship; The so-called “control test” is the most
important element.—Case law has consistently held that the
elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (a) the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to
control the employee on the means and methods by which the
work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called “control
test,” is the most important element.
Same; Same; Same; Independent Contractor; The specific
selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent
and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a
circumstance indicative but not conclusive of independent
SONZA does not conclusively determine his status.—Independent
contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills,
expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees.
The specific selection and hiring of SONZA, because of his unique
skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary
employees, is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship. If SONZA did not possess
such unique skills, talent and celebrity status, ABS-CBN would
not have entered into the Agreement with SONZA but would have
hired him through its personnel department just like any other
employee. In any event, the method of selecting and engaging
SONZA does not conclusively determine his status. We must
consider all the circumstances of the relationship, with the control
test being the most important element.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed
arose from contract and not because of an employer-employee
relationship.—All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA
were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If
SONZA were ABS-CBN’s employee, there would be no need for
the parties to stipulate on benefits such as “SSS, Medicare, x x x
and 13th month pay” which the law automatically incorporates
into every employer-employee contract. Whatever benefits
SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and not because of an
employer-employee relationship.
585
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 585
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Same; Same; Same; Same; The power to bargain talent fees
way above the salary scales of ordinary employees is a
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an independent
contractual relationship.—SONZA’s talent fees, amounting to
P317,000 monthly in the second and third year, are so huge and
out of the ordinary that they indicate more an independent
contractual relationship rather than an employer-employee
relationship. ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA such huge talent
fees precisely because of SONZA’s unique skills, talent and
celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees. Obviously,
1/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
SONZA acting alone possessed enough bargaining power to
demand and receive such huge talent fees for his services. The
power to bargain talent fees way above the salary scales of
ordinary employees is a circumstance indicative, but not
conclusive, of an independent contractual relationship.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The greater the supervision and
control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an
employee; The less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the
worker is considered an independent contractor; Applying the
control test, SONZA is not an employee but an independent
contractor.—Applying the control test to the present case, we find
that SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.
The control test is the most important test our courts apply in
distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This
test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a
worker. The greater the supervision and control the hirer
exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The
converse holds true as well—the less control the hirer exercises,
the more likely the worker is considered an independent
contractor.
Same; Same; Same; Same; ABS-CBN did not exercise control
over the means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work.—
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual
performance that produced the finished product of SONZA’s work.
ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-
CBN merely reserved the right to modify the program format and
airtime schedule “for more effective programming.” ABS-CBN’s
sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in
the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the
means and methods of performance of SONZA’s work.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A radio broadcast specialist who
works under minimal supervision is an independent contractor.—
A radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal
supervision is an independent contractor. SONZA’s work as
television and radio program host required special skills and
talent, which SONZA admittedly possesses. The records do not
show that ABS-CBN exercised any supervision and control over
how SONZA utilized his skills and talent in his shows.
586
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Same; Same; Same; Same; In the broadcast industry,
exclusivity is not necessarily the same as control.—Being an
exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an
employee of ABS-CBN. Even an independent contractor can
validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring party. In the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same as
control.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Policy Instruction No. 40 is a mere
issuance which does not have the force and effect of law.—SONZA
argues that Policy Instruction No. 40 issued by then Minister of
Labor Blas Ople on 8 January 1979 finally settled the status of
workers in the broadcast industry. Under this policy, the types of
employees in the broadcast industry are the station and program
employees. Policy Instruction No. 40 is a mere executive issuance
which does not have the force and effect of law. There is no legal
presumption that Policy Instruction No. 40 determines SONZA’s
status. A mere executive issuance cannot exclude independent
contractors from the class of service providers to the broadcast
industry. The classification of workers in the broadcast industry
into only two groups under Policy Instruction No. 40 is not
binding on this Court, especially when the classification has no
basis either in law or in fact.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of labor to security of
tenure as guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if there is an
employer-employee relationship under labor laws; Not every
performance of services for a fee creates an employer-employee
relationship.—The right of labor to security of tenure as
guaranteed in the Constitution arises only if there is an employer-
employee relationship under labor laws. Not every performance of
services for a fee creates an employer-employee relationship. To
hold that every person who renders services to another for a fee is
an employee—to give meaning to the security of tenure clause—
will lead to absurd results.
Same; Same; Labor Arbiter; The Labor Arbiter can decide a
case based solely on the position papers and the supporting
documents without a formal trial; The holding of a formal hearing
or trial is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of
right; Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities
of law and the rules obtaining in the courts of law do not strictly
apply in proceedings before a Labor Arbiter.—The Labor Arbiter
can decide a case based solely on the position papers and the
supporting documents without a formal trial. The holding of a
formal hearing or trial is something that the parties cannot
demand as a matter of right. If the Labor Arbiter is confident that
he can rely on the documents before him, he cannot be faulted for
not conducting a formal trial, unless under the particular
circumstances of the case, the documents alone are insufficient.
The proceedings before a Labor Arbiter are non-litigious in
nature. Subject to the requirements of due process, the techni-
587
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 587
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
3/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
calities of law and the rules obtaining in the courts of law do not
strictly apply in proceedings before a Labor Arbiter.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Theodore O. Te for petitioner.
     Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for respondent
ABS-CBN.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari
1
2
assailing the 26 March 1999 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49190 dismissing the petition
filed by Jose Y. Sonza (“SONZA”). The Court of Appeals
affirmed the findings of the National Labor Relations
Commission (“NLRC”), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s
dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The Facts
In May 1994, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation (“ABS-CBN”) signed an Agreement
(“Agreement”) with the Mel and Jay Management and
Development Corporation (“MJMDC”). ABS-CBN was
represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was
represented by SONZA, as President and General
Manager, and Carmela Tiangco (“TIANGCO”), as EVP and
Treasurer. Referred to in the Agreement as “AGENT,”
MJMDC agreed to provide SONZA’s services exclusively to
ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. The
Agreement listed the services SONZA would render to
ABS-CBN, as follows:
a. Co-host for Mel & Jay radio program, 8:00 to 10:00 a.m.,
Mondays to Fridays;
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Associate
Justices Jesus M. Elbinias and Marina L. Buzon concurring.
588
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
b. Co-host
3
for Mel & Jay television program, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m.,
Sundays.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZA’s services a monthly
talent fee of P310,000 for the first year and P317,000 for
the second and third year of the Agreement. ABS-CBN
would pay the talent fees on the 10th and 25th days of the
month.
On 1 April 1996, SONZA wrote a letter to ABS-CBN’s
President, Eugenio Lopez III, which reads:
Dear Mr. Lopez,
We would like to call your attention to the Agreement
dated May 1994 entered into by your goodself on behalf
of ABS-CBN with our company relative to our talent
JOSE Y. SONZA.
As you are well aware, Mr. Sonza irrevocably
resigned in view of recent events concerning his
programs and career. We consider these acts of the
station violative of the Agreement and the station as in
breach thereof. In this connection, we hereby serve
notice of rescission of said Agreement at our instance
effective as of date.
Mr. Sonza informed us that he is waiving and
renouncing recovery of the remaining amount
stipulated in paragraph 7 of the Agreement but
reserves the right to seek recovery of the other benefits
under said Agreement.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,     
(Sgd.)     
JOSE Y. SONZA     
4
President and Gen. Manager      
On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against ABS-
CBN before the Department of Labor and Employment,
National Capital Region in Quezon City. SONZA
complained that ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries,
separation pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month
pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due
under the Employees Stock Option Plan (“ESOP”).
_______________
3 Rollo, p. 150.
4 Ibid., p. 204.
5/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
On 10 July 1996, ABS-CBN filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed
between the parties. SONZA filed an Opposition to the
motion on 19 July 1996.
Meanwhile, ABS-CBN continued to remit SONZA’s
monthly talent fees through his account at PCIBank,
Quezon Avenue Branch, Quezon City. In July 1996, ABS-
CBN opened a new account with the same bank where
ABS-CBN deposited SONZA’s talent fees and other
payments due him under the Agreement. 5 given to employees. For one, complainant Sonza’s monthly talent
In his Order dated 2 December 1996, the Labor Arbiter
denied the motion to dismiss and directed the parties to file
their respective position papers. The Labor Arbiter ruled:
In this instant case, complainant for having invoked a claim that
he was an employee of respondent company until April 15, 1996
and that he was not paid certain claims, it is sufficient enough as
to confer jurisdiction over the instant case in this Office. And as to
whether or not such claim would entitle complainant to recover
upon the causes of action asserted is a matter to be resolved only
after and as a result of a hearing. Thus, the respondent’s plea of
lack of employer-employee relationship may be pleaded only as a
matter of defense. It behooves upon it the duty to prove that there
really is no employer-employee relationship between it and the
complainant.
The Labor Arbiter then considered the case submitted for
resolution. The parties submitted their position papers on
24 February 1997.
On 11 March 1997, SONZA filed a Reply to Respondent’s
Position Paper with Motion to Expunge Respondent’s
Annex 4 and Annex 5 from the Records. Annexes 4 and 5
are affidavits of ABS-CBN’s witnesses Soccoro Vidanes and
Rolando V. Cruz. These witnesses stated in their affidavits
that the prevailing practice in the television and broadcast
industry is to treat talents like SONZA as independent
contractors.
The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision dated 8 6 July
1997 dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The
pertinent parts of the decision read as follows:
_______________
5 Donato G. Quinto, Jr.
6 Rollo, pp. 114-130.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
589 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
589
xxx
While Philippine jurisprudence has not yet, with certainty,
touched on the “true nature of the contract of a talent,” it stands
to reason that a “talent” as above-described cannot be considered
as an employee by reason of the peculiar circumstances
surrounding the engagement of his services.
It must be noted that complainant was engaged by respondent
by reason of his peculiar skills and talent as a TV host and a radio
broadcaster. Unlike an ordinary employee, he was free to perform
the services he undertook to render in accordance with his own
style. The benefits conferred to complainant under the May 1994
Agreement are certainly very much higher than those generally
fees amount to a staggering P317,000. Moreover, his engagement
as a talent was covered by a specific contract. Likewise, he was
not bound to render eight (8) hours of work per day as he worked
only for such number of hours as may be necessary.
The fact that per the May 1994 Agreement complainant was
accorded some benefits normally given to an employee is
inconsequential. Whatever benefits complainant enjoyed arose
from specific agreement by the parties and not by reason of
employer-employee relationship. As correctly put by the
respondent, “All these benefits are merely talent fees and other
contractual benefits and should not be deemed as ‘salaries, wages
and/or other remuneration’ accorded to an employee,
notwithstanding the nomenclature appended to these benefits.
Apropos to this is the rule that the term or nomenclature given to
a stipulated benefit is not controlling, but the intent of the parties
to the Agreement conferring such benefit.”
The fact that complainant was made subject to respondent’s
Rules and Regulations, likewise, does not detract from the absence
of employer-employee relationship. As held by the Supreme Court,
“The line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be employed in
attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and
bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first,
which aim only to promote the result, create no employer-
employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the
result and the means to achieve it.” (Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
7
84484, November 15, 1989).
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
SONZA appealed to the NLRC. On 24 February 1998, the
NLRC rendered a Decision affirming the Labor Arbiter’s
decision. SONZA
_______________
590
7/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
7 Ibid., pp. 123-125.
591
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 591
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied
in its Resolution dated 3 July 1998.
On 6 October 1998, SONZA filed a special civil action for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the decision
and resolution of the NLRC. On 26 March 1999, the Court
8
of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the case.
Hence, this petition.
The Rulings of the NLRC and Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s finding that no
employer-employee relationship existed between SONZA
and ABS-CBN. Adopting the NLRC’s decision, the
appellate court quoted the following findings of the NLRC:
x x x the May 1994 Agreement will readily reveal that MJMDC
entered into the contract merely as an agent of complainant
Sonza, the principal. By all indication and as the law puts it, the
act of the agent is the act of the principal itself. This fact is made
particularly true in this case, as admittedly MJMDC ‘is a
management company devoted exclusively to managing the
careers of Mr. Sonza and his broadcast partner, Mrs. Carmela C.
Tiangco.’ (Opposition to Motion to Dismiss)
Clearly, the relations of principal and agent only accrues
between complainant Sonza and MJMDC, and not between ABS-
CBN and MJMDC. This is clear from the provisions of the May
1994 Agreement which specifically referred to MJMDC as the
‘AGENT.’ As a matter of fact, when complainant herein
unilaterally rescinded said May 1994 Agreement, it was MJMDC
which issued the notice of rescission in behalf of Mr. Sonza, who
himself signed the same in his capacity as President.
Moreover, previous contracts between Mr. Sonza and ABS-
CBN reveal the fact that historically, the parties to the said
agreements are ABS-CBN and Mr. Sonza. And it is only in the
May 1994 Agreement, which is the latest Agreement executed
between ABS-CBN and Mr. Sonza, that MJMDC figured in the
said Agreement as the agent of Mr. Sonza.
We find it erroneous to assert that MJMDC is a mere ‘labor-
only’ contractor of ABS-CBN such that there exist[s] employer-
employee relationship between the latter and Mr. Sonza. On the
contrary, We find it indubitable, that MJMDC is an agent, not of
ABS-CBN, but of the talent/contractor Mr. Sonza, as expressly
admitted by the latter and MJMDC in the May 1994 Agreement.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
_______________
8 Ibid., p. 39.
592
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
It may not be amiss to state that jurisdiction over the instant
controversy indeed belongs to the regular courts, the same being
in the nature of an action for alleged breach of contractual
obligation on the part of respondent-appellee. As squarely
apparent from complainant-appellant’s Position Paper, his claims
for compensation for services, ‘13th month pay’, signing bonus and
travel allowance against respondent-appellee are not based on the
Labor Code but rather on the provisions of the May 1994
Agreement, while his claims for proceeds under Stock Purchase
Agreement are based on the latter. A portion of the Position Paper
of complainant-appellant bears perusal:
‘Under [the May 1994 Agreement] with respondent ABS-CBN, the latter
contractually bound itself to pay complainant a signing bonus consisting
of shares of stocks…with FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P500,000.00).
Similarly, complainant is also entitled to be paid 13th month pay
based on an amount not lower than the amount he was receiving prior to
effectivity of (the) Agreement’.
Under paragraph 9 of (the May 1994 Agreement), complainant is
entitled to a commutable travel benefit amounting to at least One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) per year.’
Thus, it is precisely because of complainant-appellant’s own
recognition of the fact that his contractual relations with ABS-
CBN are founded on the New Civil Code, rather than the Labor
Code, that instead of merely resigning from ABS-CBN,
complainant-appellant served upon the latter a ‘notice of
rescission’ of Agreement with the station, per his letter dated
April 1, 1996, which asserted that instead of referring to unpaid
employee benefits, ‘he is waiving and renouncing recovery of the
remaining amount stipulated in paragraph 7 of the Agreement
but reserves the right to such recovery of the other benefits under
said Agreement.’ (Annex 3 of the respondent ABS-CBN’s Motion
to Dismiss dated July 10, 1996).
Evidently, it is precisely by reason of the alleged violation of
the May 1994 Agreement and/or the Stock Purchase Agreement
by respondent-appellee that complainant-appellant filed his
complaint. Complainant-appellant’s claims being anchored on the
alleged breach of contract on the part of respondent-appellee, the
same can be resolved by reference to civil law and not to labor
law. Consequently, they are within the realm of civil law and,
thus, lie with the regular courts. As held in the case of Dai-Chi
9/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

Electronics Manufacturing vs. Villarama, 238 SCRA 267, 21 radio and television program host is an employee of the
November 1994, an action 9for breach of contractual obligation is broadcast station.
intrinsically a civil dispute. (Emphasis supplied) The instant case involves big names in the broadcast
industry, namely Jose “Jay” Sonza, a known television and
_______________ radio personality,

9 Rollo, pp. 37-39.

_______________
593 10 Ibid., p. 39.
11 Ibid.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 593 12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
14 Ibid., p. 269.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the existence of an 594

employer-employee relationship between SONZA and ABS-
CBN is a factual question that is within the jurisdiction of
10
the NLRC to resolve. A special civil action for certiorari 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
extends only
11
to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction of Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
the NLRC. Such action cannot cover an inquiry into the
correctness of the evaluation of the12 evidence which served and ABS-CBN, one of the biggest television and radio
as basis of the NLRC’s conclusion. The Court of Appeals networks in the country.
added that it could not re-examine the parties’ evidence SONZA contends that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
and 13
substitute the factual findings of the NLRC with its over the case because he was an employee of ABS-CBN. On
own. the other hand, ABS-CBN insists that the Labor Arbiter
has no jurisdiction because SONZA was an independent
The Issue contractor.

In assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals, SONZA

Employee or Independent Contractor?
contends that:
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING
question of fact. Appellate courts accord the factual
THE NLRC’S DECISION AND REFUSING TO FIND THAT AN
findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC not only
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED
respect but also finality when supported by substantial
BETWEEN SONZA AND ABS-CBN, DESPITE THE WEIGHT 15
evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant
OF CONTROLLING LAW, JURISPRUDENCE AND EVIDENCE
14
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
TO SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING. 16
support a conclusion. A party cannot prove the absence of
substantial evidence by simply pointing out that there is
contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial. The
The Court’s Ruling Court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the
tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies
We affirm the assailed decision. 17
or what evidence is credible.
No convincing reason exists to warrant a reversal of the
SONZA maintains that all essential elements of an
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the NLRC ruling
employer-employee relationship are present in this case.
which upheld the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the case for
Case law has consistently held that the elements of an
lack of jurisdiction.
employer-employee relationship are: (a) the selection and
The present controversy is one of first impression.
engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c)
Although Philippine labor laws and jurisprudence define
the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to
clearly the elements of an employer-employee relationship,
control the employee on the means and methods
this is the first time that the Court will resolve the nature
of the relationship between a television and radio station
and one of its “talents.” There is no case law stating that a _______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/29

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

15 Fleischer Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, ABS-CBN directly paid SONZA his monthly talent fees
G.R. No. 121608, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 105; AFP Mutual Benefit with no part of his fees going to MJMDC. SONZA asserts
Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. that this mode of fee payment shows that he was an
102199, 28 January 1997, 267 SCRA 47; Cathedral School of Technology v. employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA also points out that ABS-
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 101438, 13 October 1992, CBN granted him benefits and privileges
214 SCRA 551. See also Ignacio v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., 417 Phil.
747; 365 SCRA 418 (2001); Gonzales v. National Labor Relations _______________
Commission, G.R. No. 131653, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 195; Sandigan
18 De Los Santos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 423 Phil.
Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
1020; 372 SCRA 723 (2001); Traders Royal Bank v. National Labor
324 Phil. 348; 254 SCRA 126 (1996); Magnolia Dairy Products
Relations Commission, 378 Phil. 1081; 321 SCRA 467 (1999); Aboitiz
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 322 Phil. 508; 252
Shipping Employees Association v. National Labor Relations Commission,
SCRA 483 (1996).
G.R. No. 78711, 27 June 1990, 186 SCRA 825; Ruga v. National Labor
16 Madlos v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 Phil. 498; 254
Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 72654-61, 22 January 1990, 181 SCRA
SCRA 248 (1996).
266.
17 Domasig v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118101,
19 Ibid.
16 September 1996, 261 SCRA 779.
596
595

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 595
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation

18
“which he would not have enjoyed if he were truly the
by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the
19
subject of a valid job contract.”
socalled “control test,” is the most important element.
All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the
A. Selection and Engagement of Employee result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. If SONZA
were ABS-CBN’s employee, there would be no need for the
ABS-CBN engaged SONZA’s services to co-host its
parties to stipulate on benefits such as “SSS, Medicare, x x
television and radio programs because of SONZA’s peculiar 20
x and 13th month pay” which the law automatically
skills, talent and celebrity status. SONZA contends that 21
incorporates into every employer-employee contract.
the “discretion used by respondent in specifically selecting
Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose from contract and
and hiring complainant over other broadcasters of possibly 22
not because of an employer-employee relationship.
similar experience and qualification as complainant belies
SONZA’s talent fees, amounting to P317,000 monthly in
respondent’s claim of independent contractorship.”
the second and third year, are so huge and out of the
Independent contractors often present themselves to
ordinary that they indicate more an independent
possess unique skills, expertise or talent to distinguish
contractual relationship rather than an employer-employee
them from ordinary employees. The specific selection and
relationship. ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA such huge
hiring of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent and
talent fees precisely because of SONZA’s unique skills,
celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees, is a
talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
employees. Obviously, SONZA acting alone possessed
independent contractual relationship. If SONZA did not
enough bargaining power to demand and receive such huge
possess such unique skills, talent and celebrity status,
talent fees for his services. The power to bargain talent fees
ABS-CBN would not have entered into the Agreement with
way above the salary scales of ordinary employees is a
SONZA but would have hired him through its personnel
circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
department just like any other employee.
independent contractual relationship.
In any event, the method of selecting and engaging
The payment of talent fees directly to SONZA and not to
SONZA does not conclusively determine his status. We
MJMDC does not negate the status of SONZA as an
must consider all the circumstances of the relationship,
independent contractor. The parties expressly agreed on
with the control test being the most important element.
such mode of payment.
B. Payment of Wages
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
20 Paragraph 10 of the Agreement provides: “The COMPANY shall
provide him with the following benefits: SSS, Medicare, Healthcare,
executive life and accident insurance, and a 13th-month pay based on an
amount not lower than the amount he was receiving prior to the effectivity
of this Agreement.”
21 Presidential Decree No. 851 (Requiring All Employers to Pay their
Employees a 13th-month Pay) for the 13th month pay; Republic Act No.
1161 (Social Security Law) for the SSS benefits; and Republic Act No.
7875 (National Health Insurance Act of 1995) for the Philhealth
insurance.
22 Article 1157 of the Civil Code explicitly provides:
Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts. (Emphasis supplied)
597
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 597
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Under the Agreement, MJMDC is the AGENT of SONZA,
to whom MJMDC would have to turn over any talent fee
accruing under the Agreement.
C. Power of Dismissal
For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either
party may terminate their relationship. SONZA failed to
show that ABS-CBN could terminate his services on
grounds other than breach of contract, such as
retrenchment to prevent losses as provided under labor
23
laws.
During the life of the Agreement, ABS-CBN agreed to
pay SONZA’s talent fees as long as “AGENT and Jay Sonza
shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of
24
this Agreement.” Even if it suffered severe business
losses, ABS-CBN could not retrench SONZA because ABS-
CBN remained obligated to pay SONZA’s talent fees during
the life of the Agreement. This circumstance indicates an
independent contractual relationship between SONZA and
ABS-CBN.
SONZA admits that even after ABS-CBN ceased
broadcasting his programs, ABS-CBN still paid him his
talent fees. Plainly, ABS-CBN adhered to its undertaking
in the Agreement to continue paying SONZA’s talent fees
during the remaining life of the Agreement even if ABS-
CBN cancelled SONZA’s programs through no fault of
25
SONZA.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
_______________
23 See Article 283, Labor Code.
24 Paragraph 7 of the Agreement states: “Provided that the AGENT and
Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this
Agreement for and in consideration of the aforesaid services by the
AGENT and its talent, the COMPANY agrees to pay the AGENT for the
first year of this Agreement the amount of THREE HUNDRED TEN
THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P310,000.00) per month, payable on the 10th
and 25th of each month. For the second and third year of this Agreement,
the COMPANY shall pay the amount of THREE HUNDRED
SEVENTEEN THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P317,000.00) per month,
payable likewise on the 10th and 25th of the each month.”
25 Paragraph 11 of the Agreement states: “In the event of cancellation
of this Agreement through no fault of the AGENT and its talent,
COMPANY agrees to pay the full amount specified in this Agreement for
the remaining period covered by this Agreement, provided that the talent
shall not render any service for or in any other radio or television produc
598
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
SONZA assails the Labor Arbiter’s interpretation of his
rescission of the Agreement as an admission that he is not
an employee of ABS-CBN. The Labor Arbiter stated that “if
it were true that complainant was really an employee, he
would merely resign, instead.” SONZA did actually resign
from ABS-CBN but he also, as president of MJMDC,
rescinded
26
the Agreement. SONZA’s letter clearly bears this
out. However, the manner by which SONZA terminated
his relationship with ABS-CBN is immaterial. Whether
SONZA rescinded the Agreement or resigned from work
does not determine his status as employee or independent
contractor.
D. Power of Control
Since there is no local precedent on whether a radio and
television program host is an employee or an independent
contractor, we refer to foreign case law in analyzing the
present case. The United States Court of Appeals, First
Circuit, recently held in Alberty-Vélez v. Corporación De
27
Puerto Rico Para La Difusión Pública (“WIPR”) that a
television program host is an independent contractor. We
quote the following findings of the U.S. court:
Several factors favor classifying Alberty as an independent
contractor. First, a television actress is a skilled position requiring
talent and training not available on-the-job. x x x In this regard,
Alberty possesses a master’s degree in public communications and
journalism; is trained in dance, singing, and modeling; taught
15/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
with the drama department at the University of Puerto Rico; and
acted in several theater and television productions prior to her
affiliation with “Desde Mi Pueblo.” Second, Alberty provided the
“tools and instrumentalities” necessary for her to perform.
Specifically, she provided, or obtained sponsors to provide, the
costumes, jewelry, and other image-related supplies and services
necessary for her appearance. Alberty disputes that this factor
favors independent contractor status because WIPR provided the
“equipment necessary to tape the show.” Alberty’s argument is
misplaced. The equipment necessary for Alberty to conduct her
job as host of “Desde Mi Pueblo” related to her appearance on the
show. Others provided equipment for filming and pro-
_______________
tion of any person, firm, corporation or any entity competing with the
COMPANY until the expiry hereof.”
26 The opening sentence of the second paragraph of SONZA’s letter reads:
“As you are well aware, Mr. Sonza irrevocably resigned in view of recent events
concerning his programs and career. x x x”
27 361 F.3d 1, 2 March 2004.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
ducing the show, but these were not the primary tools that
Alberty used to perform her particular function. If we accepted
this argument, independent contractors could never work on
collaborative projects because other individuals often provide the
equipment required for different aspects of the collaboration. x x x
Third, WIPR could not assign Alberty work in addition to
filming “Desde Mi Pueblo.” Alberty’s contracts with WIPR
specifically provided that WIPR hired her “professional services
as Hostess for the Program Desde Mi Pueblo.” There is no
evidence that WIPR assigned28 Alberty tasks in addition to work
related to these tapings. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that
SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor.
The control test is the most important test our courts apply
in distinguishing an employee from an independent
29
contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the
hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision
and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker
is deemed an employee. The converse holds
_______________
28 See also Spirides v. Reinhardt, 486 F. Supp. 685 (1980).
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
29 In the United States, aside from the right of control test, there are
the “economic reality” test and the “multi-factor test.” The tests are drawn
from statutes, regulations, rules, policies, rulings, case law and the like.
The “right of control” test applies under the Federal Internal Revenue
Code (“IRC”). The “economic reality” test applies to the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”).29 The California Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (“DLSE”) uses a hybrid of these two tests often referred to as
the “multi-factor test” in determining who an employee is.
Most courts in the United States have utilized the control test to
determine whether one is an employee. Under this test, a court must
consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by
which the product is accomplished. Among other factors relevant to this
inquiry are the skills required; the source of the instrumentalities and
tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between
the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional
projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over
when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role
in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular
business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the
provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.
(www.piercegorman.com., quoted from the article entitled “Management-
side employment law advice for the entertainment industry” with subtitle
599
“Classification of Workers: Independent Contractors versus Employee” by
David Albert Pierce, Esq.)
599
600
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
true as well—the less control the hirer exercises, the more 30
likely the worker is considered an independent contractor.
First, SONZA contends that ABS-CBN exercised control
over the means and methods of his work.
SONZA’s argument is misplaced. ABS-CBN engaged
SONZA’s services specifically to co-host the “Mel & Jay”
programs. ABS-CBN did not assign any other work to
SONZA. To perform his work, SONZA only needed his
skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared
on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-
CBN’s control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours
of work per day. The Agreement required SONZA to attend
only rehearsals and tapings of the shows,
31
as well as pre-
and post-production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not
dictate the contents of SONZA’s script. However, the
Agreement prohibited SONZA 32
from criticizing in his shows
ABS-CBN or its interests. The clear implication is that
SONZA had a free hand on what to say or discuss in his
shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests.
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual
performance that produced the finished product of
33
17/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
33
SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN did not instruct SONZA how to
perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to
modify the program format and air-
_______________
30 www.piercegorman.com., quoted from the article entitled
“Management-side employment law advice for the entertainment
industry” with subtitle “Classification of Workers: Independent
Contractors versus Employee” by David Albert Pierce, Esq.
31 Paragraph 4 of the Agreement provides: “AGENT will make available
Jay Sonza for rehearsals and tapings of the Programs on the day and time
set by the producer and director of the Programs and to attend pre and
post production staff meetings.”
32 Paragraph 15 of the Agreement provides: “AGENT, talent shall not
use the Programs as a venue to broadcast or announce any criticism on
any operational, administrative, or legal problems, situations or other
matter which may occur, exist or alleged to have occurred or existed
within the COMPANY. Likewise, AGENT, talent shall, in accordance with
good broadcast management and ethics, take up with the proper officers of
the COMPANY suggestions or criticisms on any matter or condition
affecting the COMPANY or its relation to the public or third parties.”
33 In Zhengxing v. Nathanson, 215 F.Supp.2d 114, citing Redd v.
Summers, 232 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir.), plaintiff’s superior was not involved in
the actual performance that produced the final product.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
time schedule “for more effective programming.” ABS-
34
CBN’s sole concern was the quality of the shows and their
standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise
control over the means and methods of performance of
SONZA’s work.
SONZA claims that ABS-CBN’s power not to broadcast
his shows proves ABS-CBN’s power over the means and
methods of the performance of his work. Although ABS-
CBN did have the option not to broadcast SONZA’s show,
ABS-CBN was still obligated to pay SONZA’s talent fees.
Thus, even if ABS-CBN was completely dissatisfied with
the means and methods of SONZA’s performance of his
work, or even with the quality or product of his work, ABS-
CBN could not dismiss or even discipline SONZA. All that
ABS-CBN could do is not to broadcast SONZA’s show but
35
ABS-CBN must still pay his talent fees in full.
Clearly, ABS-CBN’s right not to broadcast SONZA’s
show, burdened as it was by the obligation to continue
paying in full SONZA’s talent fees, did not amount to
control over the means and methods of the performance of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
SONZA’s work. ABS-CBN could not terminate or discipline
SONZA even if the means and methods of performance of
his work—how he delivered his lines and appeared on
television—did not meet ABS-CBN’s approval. This proves
that ABS-CBN’s control was limited only to the result of
SONZA’s work, whether to broadcast the final product or
not. In either case, ABS-CBN must still pay SONZA’s
talent fees in full until the expiry of the36Agreement.
In Vaughan, et al. v. Warner, et al., the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that vaudeville performers
were independent contractors although the management
reserved the right to delete objectionable features in their
shows. Since the management did not have control over the
manner of performance of the skills of the artists, it could
only control
37
the result of the work by deleting objectionable
features.
_______________
34 Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides: “The COMPANY reserves
the right to modify the program format and likewise change airtime
schedule for more effective programming.”
35 The right not to broadcast an independent contractor’s show also
gives the radio and television station protection in case it deems the
contents of the show libelous.
36 157 F.2d 26, 8 August 1946.
601 37 Ibid.
602
601
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
SONZA further contends that ABS-CBN exercised control
over his work by supplying all equipment and crew. No
doubt, ABS-CBN supplied the equipment, crew and airtime
needed to broadcast the “Mel & Jay” programs. However,
the equipment, crew and airtime are not the “tools and
instrumentalities” SONZA needed to perform his job. What
SONZA principally needed were his talent 38
or skills and the
costumes necessary for his appearance. Even though ABS-
CBN provided SONZA with the place of work and the
necessary equipment, SONZA was still an independent
contractor since ABS-CBN did not supervise and control
his work. ABS-CBN’s sole concern was for SONZA 39
to
display his talent during the airing of the programs.
A radio broadcast specialist who works40 under minimal
supervision is an independent contractor. SONZA’s work
as television and radio program host required special skills
and talent, which SONZA admittedly possesses. The
records do not show that ABS-
19/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
_______________
38 In Zhengxing v. Nathanson, 215 F.Supp.2d 114, 5 August 2002,
plaintiff was also provided with the place of work and equipment to be
used.
39 In the Alberty case, the US Court of Appeals rejected Alberty’s
contention that WIPR provided the “equipment necessary to tape the
show.” The court held there that “the equipment necessary for Alberty to
conduct her job as program host related to her appearance on the show.
Others provided equipment for filming and producing the show, but these
were not the primary tools that Alberty used to perform her particular
function.” Since Alberty provided, or obtained sponsors to provide, the
costumes, jewelry, and other image-related supplies and services
necessary for her appearance, she provided the “tools
instrumentalities” necessary for her to perform. The US Court of Appeals
added that if it accepted Alberty’s argument, independent contractors
could never work on collaborative projects because other individuals often
provide the equipment required for different aspects of the collaboration.
The Alberty case further ruled that “while ‘control’ over the manner,
location, and hours of work is often critical to the independent
contractor/employee analysis, it must be considered in light of the work
performed and the industry at issue. Considering the tasks that an actor
performs, the court does not believe that the sort of control identified by
Alberty necessarily indicates employee status.”
40 In Zhengxing, a Chinese language broadcaster and translator was
deemed an independent contractor because she worked under minimal
supervision. The U.S. court also found that plaintiff was required to
possess specialized knowledge before commencing her position as a
broadcaster.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
CBN exercised any supervision and control over how
SONZA utilized his skills and talent in his shows.
Second, SONZA urges us to rule that he was ABS-CBN’s
employee because ABS-CBN subjected him to its rules and
standards of performance. SONZA claims that this
indicates ABS-CBN’s control “not only [over] his manner of
work but also the quality of his work.”
The Agreement stipulates that SONZA shall abide with 41
the rules and standards of performance “covering talents”
of ABS-CBN. The Agreement does not require SONZA to
comply with the rules and standards of performance
prescribed for employees of ABS-CBN. The code of conduct
imposed on SONZA under the Agreement refers to the
“Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga
Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), which has been adopted
42
by
the COMPANY (ABS-CBN) as its Code of Ethics.” The
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
KBP code applies to broadcasters, not to employees of radio
and television stations. Broadcasters are not necessarily
employees of radio and television stations. Clearly, the
rules and standards of performance referred to in the
Agreement are those applicable to talents and not to
employees of ABS-CBN.
In any event, not all rules imposed by the hiring party
on the hired43 party indicate that the latter is an employee of
the former. In this case, SONZA failed to show that these
rules controlled his performance. We find that these
general rules are merely guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually desired result, which are top-
rating television and radio programs that comply with
and standards of the industry. We have ruled that:
_______________
41 Paragraph 13 of the Agreement provides: “AGENT agrees that talent
shall abide by the rules, regulations and standards of performance of the
COMPANY covering talents, and that talent is bound to comply with the
Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa
Pilipinas (KBP), which has been adopted by the COMPANY as its Code of
Ethics. AGENT shall perform and keep all of the duties and obligations
assumed or entered by the AGENT hereunder using its best talents and
abilities. Any violation of or non-conformity with this provision by talent
shall be a valid and sufficient ground for the immediate termination of the
Agreement.” (Emphasis supplied)
42 Ibid.
43 AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 102199, 28 January 1997, 267 SCRA 47.
603
604
603
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
Further, not every form of control that a party reserves to himself
over the conduct of the other party in relation to the services
being rendered may be accorded the effect of establishing an
employer-employee relationship. The facts of this case fall
squarely with the case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs.
NLRC. In said case, we held that:
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as
guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it,
and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the
party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to
promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the
44
second, which address both the result and the means used to achieve it.
21/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

The Vaughan case also held that one could still be an ostensibly under the employ of the “labor-only” contractor;
independent contractor although the hirer reserved certain and (3) the principal who is deemed the real employer.
supervision to insure the attainment of the desired result. Under this scheme, the “labor-only” contractor is the agent
The hirer, however, must not deprive the one hired 45from of the principal. The law makes the principal responsible to
performing his services according to his own initiative. the employees of the “labor-only contractor” as if the 48
Lastly, SONZA insists that the “exclusivity clause” in principal itself directly hired or employed the employees.
the Agreement is the most extreme form of control which These circumstances are not present in this case.
ABS-CBN exercised over him. There are essentially only two parties involved under
This argument is futile. Being an exclusive talent does the Agreement, namely, SONZA and ABS-CBN. MJMDC
not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS- merely acted as SONZA’s agent. The Agreement expressly
CBN. Even an independent contractor can validly provide states that MJMDC acted as the “AGENT” of SONZA. The
his services exclusively to the hiring party. In the records do not show that MJMDC acted as ABS-CBN’s
broadcast industry, exclusivity is not necessarily the same agent. MJMDC, which stands for Mel and Jay
as control. Management and Development Corporation, is a
The hiring of exclusive talents is a widespread 46
and corporation organized and owned by SONZA and
accepted practice in the entertainment industry. This TIANGCO. The President and General Manager of
practice is not designed to control the means and methods MJMDC is SONZA himself. It is absurd to hold that
of work of the talent, but simply to protect the investment MJMDC, which is owned, controlled, headed and managed
of the broadcast station. The broadcast station normally by SONZA, acted as agent of ABS-CBN in entering into the
spends substantial amounts of money, time and effort “in Agreement with SONZA, who himself is represented by
building up its talents as well as the programs they appear MJMDC. That would make MJMDC the agent of both ABS-
in and thus expects that said talents remain exclusive
47
with CBN and SONZA.
the station for a commensurate period of time.” Normally,
a much higher fee is paid to talents who agree to work _______________
exclusively for
48 The second paragraph of Article 106 of the Labor Code reads:

_______________ There is “labor-only” contracting where the person supplying workers to an

employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
44 Ibid.
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited
45 Supra note 36.
and placed by such persons are performing activities which are directly related to
46 Rollo, p. 302.
the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary
47 Ibid.
shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to

605 the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed
by him.

VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 605 606

Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
a particular radio or television station. In short, the huge Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
talent fees partially compensates for exclusivity, as in the
present case. As SONZA admits, MJMDC is a management company
devoted exclusively to managing the careers of SONZA and
MJMDC as Agent of SONZA
his broadcast partner, TIANGCO. MJMDC is not engaged
SONZA protests the Labor Arbiter’s finding that he is a in any other business, not even job contracting. MJMDC
talent of MJMDC, which contracted out his services to does not have any other function apart from acting as
ABS-CBN. The Labor Arbiter ruled that as a talent of agent of SONZA or TIANGCO to promote their careers in
MJMDC, SONZA is not an employee of ABS-CBN. SONZA
49
the broadcast and television industry.
insists that MJMDC is a “labor-only” contractor and ABS-
CBN is his employer. Policy Instruction No. 40
In a labor-only contract, there are three parties involved:
(1) the “labor-only” contractor; (2) the employee who is
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
SONZA argues that Policy Instruction No. 40 issued by
then Minister of Labor Blas Ople on 8 January 1979 finally
settled the status of workers in the broadcast industry.
Under this policy, the types of employees in the broadcast
industry are the station and program employees.
Policy Instruction No. 40 is a mere executive issuance
which does not have the force and effect of law. There is no
legal presumption that Policy Instruction No. 40
determines SONZA’s status. A mere executive issuance
cannot exclude independent contractors from the class of
service providers to the broadcast industry. The
classification of workers in the broadcast industry into only
two groups under Policy Instruction No. 40 is not binding
on this Court, especially when the classification has no
basis either in law or in fact.
Affidavits of ABS-CBN’s Witnesses
SONZA also faults the Labor Arbiter for admitting the
affidavits of Socorro Vidanes and Rolando Cruz without
giving his counsel the opportunity to cross-examine these
witnesses. SONZA brands these witnesses as incompetent
to attest on the prevailing practice in the radio and
television industry. SONZA views the affidavits of these
witnesses as misleading and irrelevant.
While SONZA failed to cross-examine ABS-CBN’s
witnesses, he was never prevented from denying or
refuting the allegations in the affidavits. The Labor Arbiter
has the discretion whether to conduct a formal (trial-type)
hearing after the submission of the position papers of the
parties, thus:
Section 3. Submission of Position Papers/Memorandum
xxx
_______________
49 Rollo, p. 90.
VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
These verified position papers shall cover only those claims and
causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may
have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all
supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective
witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s direct
testimony. x x x
Section 4. Determination of Necessity of Hearing.—Immediately
after the submission of the parties of their position
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431
papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter shall motu propio
determine whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing. At
this stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of making
such determination, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit
facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of50
relevant documentary evidence, if any from any party or witness.
The Labor Arbiter can decide a case based solely on the
position papers
51
and the supporting documents without a
formal trial. The holding of a formal hearing or trial is
something
52
that the parties cannot demand as a matter of
right. If the Labor Arbiter is confident that he can rely on
the documents before him, he cannot be faulted for not
conducting a formal trial, unless under the particular
circumstances of the case, the documents alone are
insufficient. The proceedings before a Labor Arbiter are
non-litigious in nature. Subject to the requirements of due
process, the technicalities of law and the rules obtaining in
the courts of law do not strictly apply in proceedings before
a Labor Arbiter.
Talents as Independent Contractors
ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing practice in
the broadcast and entertainment industries to treat talents
like SONZA as independent contractors. SONZA argues
that if such practice exists, it is void for violating the right
of labor to security of tenure.
The right of labor
53
to security of tenure as guaranteed in
the Constitution arises only if there is an employer-
employee relationship
_______________
50 New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission,
as amended by Resolution 3-99, series of 1999.
51 University of the Immaculate Concepcion v. U.I.C. Teaching and Non-
Teaching Personnel and Employees Union, 414 Phil. 522; 362 SCRA 242
(2001).
607
52 Columbus Philippine Bus Corp. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 417 Phil. 81; 364 SCRA 606 (2001).
607 53 Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution.
608
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
under labor laws. Not every performance of services for a
fee creates an employer-employee relationship. To hold
that every person who renders services to another for a fee
25/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

is an employee—to give meaning to the security of tenure subject to the 10% value-added tax (“VAT”) on services they
clause—will lead to absurd results. render. Exempted from the VAT 57
are those under an
Individuals with special skills, expertise or talent enjoy employer-employee relationship. This different tax
the freedom to offer their services as independent treatment accorded to talents and broadcasters bolters our
contractors. The right to life and livelihood guarantees this conclusion that they are independent contractors, provided
freedom to contract as independent contractors. The right all the basic elements of a contractual relationship are
of labor to security of tenure cannot operate to deprive an present as in this case.
individual, possessed with special skills, expertise and
talent, of his right to contract as an independent Nature of SONZA’s Claims
contractor. An individual like an artist or talent has a right SONZA seeks the recovery of allegedly unpaid talent fees,
to render his services without any one controlling the 13th month pay, separation pay, service incentive leave,
means and methods by which he performs his art or craft. signing bonus, travel allowance, and amounts due under
This Court will not interpret the right of labor to security of the Employee Stock Option Plan. We agree with the
tenure to compel artists and talents to render their services findings of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals that
only as employees. If radio and television program hosts SONZA’s claims are all based on the May 1994 Agreement
can render their services only as employees, the station and stock option plan, and not on the Labor Code. Clearly,
owners and managers can dictate to the radio and the present case does not call for an application of the
television hosts what they say in their shows. This is not Labor Code provisions but an interpretation and
conducive to freedom of the press. implementation of the May 1994 Agreement. In effect,
SONZA’s cause of action is for breach of contract which is
Different Tax Treatment of Talents and Broadcasters intrinsically a civil dispute cognizable by the regular
54 58
The National Internal Revenue
55
Code (“NIRC”) in relation courts.
to Republic Act No. 7716, as amended by Republic Act No. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 March 1999 in
_______________ CA-G.R. SP No. 49190 is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
54 Republic Act No. 8424. BIR Revenue Regulations No. 19-99 also SO ORDERED.
provides the following:
     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-
SECTION 1. Scope.—Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 244 and 108 of the
Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, in relation to Section 17 of Republic Act
No. 7716, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act 8241, these Regulations are
_______________
hereby promulgated to govern the imposition of value-added tax on sale of services
by persons engaged in the practice of profession or calling and professional 56 Act amending Republic Act No. 7716, otherwise known as the
services rendered by general professional partnerships; services rendered by actors, Expanded Value-Added Tax Law and other pertinent provisions of the
actresses, talents, singers and emcees, radio and television broadcasters and National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (December 20, 1996).
choreographers; musical, radio, movie, television and stage directors; and 57 Section 109 of the NIRC provides:
professional athletes.
SECTION 2. Coverage.—Beginning January 1, 2000, general professional Exempt transactions.—The following shall be exempt from the value-added tax:

partnerships, professionals and persons described above shall be governed by the xxx

provisions of Revenue Regulation No. 7-95, as amended, otherwise known as the (o) Services rendered by individuals pursuant to an employer-employee

“Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations”. x x x relationship; x x x

55 Otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. 58 Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Hon. Cruz, 207 Phil. 585; 122 SCRA 671
(1983).
609
610

VOL. 431, JUNE 10, 2004 609

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
People vs. Court of Appeals
56
8241, treats talents, television and radio broadcasters
differently. Under the NIRC, these professionals are Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/29
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 431

Note.—The power of control refers to the authority of

the employer to control the employee not only with regard
to the result of work to be done but also to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished (Vinoya
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 SCRA 469
[2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783e8531fd7bd7f3d6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/29